Case Study essay paper

The Spiraling and Spillover of Misconduct: Perceived Workplace Bullying, Subclinical Psychopathy, and Businesspersons’ Recognition of an Ethical IssueCase Study

Sean R. Valentine1 & Sheila K. Hanson2 & Gary M. Fleischman3

Published online: 31 August 2017 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Abstract Workplace bullying can potentially spiral into numerous counterproductive behaviors and negative organizational outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the degree to which increased perceptions of workplace bullying were associated with stronger expressions of (subclinical) psychopathic traits and weakened ethical decision making. Data were collected from national and regional samples of selling and business professions using a self-report questionnaire that contained relevant mea- sures and an ethics scenario, and structural equation modeling was employed to investigate the proposed relationships. Findings indicated that perceived workplace bullying operated through psychopathy to influence the recognition of an ethical issue (or full mediation). The implications of these findings are discussed, along with the study’s limitations and suggestions for future research.Case Study

Keywords Workplace bullying . Spiraling . Psychopathy. Ethical decision making

Employ Respons Rights J (2017) 29:221–244 DOI 10.1007/s10672-017-9302-8

An earlier version of this study was presented at the 2016 Academy of Management Meeting, August 5–9, Anaheim, CA.

* Sean R. Valentinesean.valentine@mail.business.und.edu

Sheila K. Hansonsheila.hanson@business.und.edu

Gary M. Fleischman gary.fleischman@ttu.edu

1 Department of Management, University of North Dakota, 293 Centennial Drive, Mailstop 8377, Grand Forks, ND 58202-8377, USA

2 School of Entrepreneurship, University of North Dakota, Gamble Hall, Room 365H, 293 Centennial Drive, Stop 8363, Grand Forks, ND 58202-8263, USA

3 Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University, Box 42101, Lubbock, TX 79409-2101, USACase Study

In a typical workday, there are numerous motivations and opportunities for employees to mistreat each other. From less overt forms of misbehavior such as badmouthing, aggressive communication, and politicking to more serious types that include coercion, subversion, and sabotage, workplace bullying has emerged as a prevalent challenge in different organizations and professional environments (e.g., Aquino and Thau 2009; Hutchison et al. 2009; Lutgen- Sandvik et al. 2007; Mikkelsen and Einarsen 2001; Salin 2001). Bullying has even been explored in the academic environment given its frequency within the ranks of universities (Giorgi 2012; McKay et al. 2008; Zabrodska and Kveton 2013).Case Study

Research shows that a number of factors can cause such misbehavior. High performance expectations related to pay (Samnani and Singh 2014), stressful and/or chaotic workplaces (Baillien et al. 2011; Heames et al. 2006; Hodson et al. 2006), and limited resources can encourage individuals to be self-interested and competitive, and when these characteristics are coupled with low management oversight and/or power differentials (Hodson et al. 2006), interpersonal conflict and bullying can occur. A toxic, corrupt, or unethical work environment can also precipitate bullying (McKay et al. 2008; Hutchison et al. 2009; Valentine et al. 2015; Vickers 2014). Additionally, prior research identifies many negative outcomes of bullying such as poor work attitudes/responses, high stress/burnout, and decreased emotional, psychological, and physical well-being (Aquino and Thau 2009; Bowling and Beehr 2006; Giorgi 2012; Mayhew et al. 2004; Parzefall and Salin 2010).Case Study

A particularly destructive consequence of workplace bullying involves a spiraling effect that encourages targets to harm coworkers as a result of their own negative work experiences. According to Salin (2003, p. 1217), “…bullying can often be described as a self-reinforcing or spiraling process, building on vicious circles (cf. Andersson and Pearson 1999). In addition, bullying and other forms of anti-social behaviour may also cascade and spawn secondary bullying spirals, either through modeling or displacement (cf. Pearson et al. 2000).” Such misbehavior can also “spill over” from one area of a company to others as individuals interact with different employees (McKay et al. 2008). This implies that bullying can be repeated when it is experienced in a workplace impacted by negative employee interactions, even in other office domains. Professional and organizational contexts can exacerbate these problems with cultural characteristics that allow bullying to occur, be learned, and be reciprocated (i.e., excessive informality, preferences for aggressive behaviors/humor, and low morale), or by employing “hands off” or unfair leadership styles that fail to properly supervise the actions of employees (Boddy 2011; Harvey et al. 2009; Pilch and Turska 2015; Salin 2003). Conse- quently, certain occupations may be prone to such misconduct.

Harmful workplace behaviors appear to be significant concerns in the sales profession. The field of selling is often characterized by a variety of individual deviant behaviors, and according to Darrat, Amyx, and Bennett (2010, p. 239), this “…alarming prevalence of deviance among salespeople may be due, in part, to an inherent leniency toward deviant behavior within the sales industry.” Of particular relevance to this study are the acts of interpersonal deviance that can be exhibited by salespersons, which can include mistreating work associates, taking credit for other people’s contributions, and blaming others for negative outcomes (Jelinek and Ahearne 2006). Social undermining may also be a problem in the sales profession, behavior that includes “…intentional offenses aimed at destroying a salesperson’s favorable reputation, his or her ability to accomplish sales-related work, or his or her ability to build and maintain positive relationships with supervisors, coworkers, and customers as boundary spanners” (Yoo and Frankwick 2013, p. 80). In this sense, aggressive behaviors that harm coworkers have the capacity to spiral and spillover in the sales industry, as well as

222 Employ Respons Rights J (2017) 29:221–244

other occupations, thus adversely changing employees’ attitudes about what is considered acceptable conduct.

Negative bullying experiences that spiral out of control may also create a toxic work environment that harms an organization’s ethical context. For example, Power et al. (2013) determined that cultures emphasizing achievement and accomplishments may be more accepting of bullying, which could lead to a negative culture in which bullying becomes the norm. Furthermore, Giorgi et al. (2015) found a curvilinear relationship between bullying and job satisfaction, which suggests that increased exposure to bullying is related to (at some point) incrementally higher employee job satisfaction. Over time, bullying may not be viewed so negatively by employees, as they may perceive that some degree of bullying is necessary for high job performance.

These attitudinal changes are likely exhibited through a variety of antisocial and counter- productive tendencies. For instance, workplace bullying would seem to negatively impact how individuals prefer to interact with and treat their coworkers, setting the stage for the reciprocal and displaced mistreatment of others. In the organizational context, “it is contended that the external environment can contribute to the acquisition and maintenance of aggressive and bullying behaviors” (Harvey et al. 2009, p. 33). Past work also indicates that bullying experiences may encourage individuals to behave aggressively toward others (Hauge et al. 2009; Matthiesen and Einarsen 2007).

But what negative psychological processes motivate persons to bully others in response to their negative job interactions? The answer to this question likely resides within a group of personality traits that may be reinforced based on bullying experiences. According to Pilch and Turska (2015, p. 85):

In the case of the personality of perpetrators, the set of significant traits which may prove to be crucial for understanding the group specificity is the Dark Triad of personality (Machiavellianism, subclinical psychopathy, and subclinical narcissism) (Paulhus and Williams 2002). Despite their distinct difference, these traits are related by treating people like objects, manipulativeness, and lack of empathy, which favors undertaking of the activities classified as bullying (Baughman et al. 2012).

Of these three traits, psychopathy, which can motivate individuals to act ruthlessly and cold toward multiple target individuals, may be the most strongly associated with bullying because the two factors represent a common underlying set of negative behavioral tendencies that directly harm others (Baughman et al. 2012; Boddy 2011). While Machiavellianism and narcissism can lead to negative interactions with others, these traits may share comparatively weaker relationships with overt/serious forms of aggression such as bullying than does psychopathy (see for example Baughman et al. 2012; Pilch and Turska 2015), as well as be viewed as less undesirable (Rauthmann and Kolar 2012), possibly indicating that psychopathy is the most socially disruptive characteristic in the Dark Triad. Consequently, as a personality style psychopathy may be manifested through an “acting out” of negative tendencies that precipitate (and possibly reinforce) workplace bullying, thus encouraging a spiraling/spillover of misconduct in the workplace.

There is also reason to believe that the spiraling/spillover of bullying and the reinforcement of (subclinical) psychopathy personality styles negatively affect the ethical decisions that are triggered when employees are mistreated. Using multiple ethical lenses (i.e., deontology, utilitarianism, fairness, etc.), workplace bullying and the actions closely associated with psychopathy are unethical because organizations are ultimately harmed by a reliance on

Employ Respons Rights J (2017) 29:221–244 223

aggression as acceptable behavior (Boddy 2011; Harvey et al. 2009). These norms likely decrease individuals’ ability to make ethical decisions because they are impacted by a negative work environment and behavioral tendencies. Harvey et al. (2009) presented a framework for understanding bullying in international business, which highlights how the work context can encourage bullying and modify employees’ behavioral tendencies based on observed miscon- duct. These linkages suggest that unethical decision making is driving an increased willingness among individuals to mistreat others. It is known that:

…employees solve ethical dilemmas based on their individual characteristics, the organizational culture in which they are embedded and the resulting ‘realities’ of the work environment, and their relationships with others in the organization. If any of these elements deficient or aberrant behavior in nature bullying can occur. Moreover, if the situation is not adequately addressed by management, bullying can become an accepted ‘ethical’ behavior in global organizations (Harvey et al. 2009, p. 30).

Research also shows that traits such as Machiavellianism and psychopathy are associated with increased workplace bullying and other dysfunctional actions (Baysinger et al. 2014; Pilch and Turska 2015), which implies that employees’ ethical decision making and behavioral choices are compromised when they are subjected to bullying, and that similar misbehaviors can be prompted by the unethical reasoning associated with negative behavioral tendencies.

Given these issues and concerns, the purpose of this study is to investigate the degree to which workplace bullying, psychopathy, and ethical decision making are interrelated in organizations. While including these three factors in one study represents an ambitious effort, we believe that examining a more comprehensive model (instead of narrowing the scope of the investigation to just two variables) enables us to more effectively bring together distinct literatures and make a stronger contribution. In addition, the variables selected and relationships proposed more closely align with existing theory in the field of managerial ethics; for instance, many models of ethical reasoning indicate that decision making is influenced by both individual and contextual factors in an interactional sense (see Ferrell and Gresham 1985; Hunt and Vitell 2006; Jones 1991; Treviño 1986). It is therefore proposed that perceptions of organization-wide bullying encourage attitudes and behaviors consistent with psychopathy, which decrease the recognition that the mistreat- ment of a selling professional (presented in a sales scenario) is unethical. While the presence of reverse causation is certainly plausible (i.e., psychopathy ➔ workplace bullying), we posit that broad perceptions of a work environment characterized by bullying (as opposed to more immediate and negative target experiences) have the capacity to encourage employee behaviors related to psychopathy, which result in weak- ened ethical reasoning. As noted previously, we also contend that the selling profession is an appropriate context for exploring these linkages because it is adversely impacted by a variety of ethical issues (see Caywood and Laczniak 1986; Ferrell et al. 2007; Hoffman et al. 1991; Seevers et al. 2007; Serviere-Munoz and Mallin 2013; Tellefsen and Eyuboglu 2002; Wotruba 1990), including interpersonal conflict and deviant behavior that is closely related to workplace bullying (Darrat et al. 2010; Jelinek and Ahearne 2006; Yoo and Frankwick 2013). In addition, “…there is relatively little known about negative salesper- son behaviors” (Jelinek and Ahearne 2006, p. 327), and “…little work has explored salesperson negative or dysfunctional behavior and what causes this negative behavior” (Yoo and Frankwick 2013, p. 79), so investigating the proposed relationships within the selling context enables this study to make a more substantial contribution to the literature.

224 Employ Respons Rights J (2017) 29:221–244

This research is important and relevant for several reasons. First, it represents one of the first examinations of the possible connections among workplace bullying, subclinical psychopathy, and individual ethical decision making. Valentine et al. (2017) found, among other relationships identified, that bullying experiences were positively related to psychopathy, and that psychopathy was negatively related to the perceived importance of an ethical issue and ethical intention. However, this present study examines a broader, more culture-centric measure of workplace bullying, or bullying index, as well as a different component of ethical decision making, recognition of an ethical issue, to investigate the notion that negative social interactions in the workplace have the capacity to harm multiple stages of individual ethical reasoning. Similar to other culture-based measures, use of an index that taps employees’ perceptions of organization-wide bullying is particularly appropriate because, compared to more narrow measures of individual bullying experiences, it should provide a better gauge of the sociocultural norms (and subsequent misconduct) that occur throughout a company. Key to this investigation, perceptions of these behavioral norms should be better positioned to influence individuals’ decisions about how to think and behave from an ethical standpoint.

By exploring these key relationships, this study also has the potential to fill important theoretical and empirical gaps at the crossroads of the business ethics and management literatures. A number of perspectives such as social exchange theory (i.e., perceived psycho- logical contract breach, injustice, low organizational support) (Parzefall and Salin 2010), social learning theory (Harvey et al. 2009; Salin 2003), and Novak’s (1998) learning theory (Altman 2010) have been used to explore the proliferation of workplace bullying, and testing the study’s proposed relationships provides additional evidence that these theoretical lenses are useful tools for understanding why such aggression occurs in organizations. Additionally, providing evidence that perceived workplace bullying and reinforcement of subclinical psy- chopathy function in concert to harm ethical reasoning provides further understanding of how bullying can negatively spiral into other dysfunctional tendencies in the workplace. According to Parzefall and Salin (2010, p. 762), “to date very limited attempts have been made to understand the mechanisms and processes through which the experience of workplace bullying evolves and translates into negative reactions from targets and, above all, from bystanders. This is an important issue, as the experience of bullying ultimately influences evaluations of the employment relationship and its quality as a whole.” The following section presents the relevant literature and hypotheses.

Literature Review

Workplace Bullying and Psychopathy

Definitions of workplace bullying commonly revolve around negative verbal or nonverbal behaviors directed at target individuals, as well as the outcomes of these negative acts and harmful effects on victims (Einarsen et al. 1994; Saunders et al. 2007). Bullying may range from subtle comments to aggressive behavior. Less severe forms of bullying (e.g. snide comments) that occur frequently may be just as harmful as more serious bullying experiences (e.g. humiliation), where the perceptions of negative and inappropriate behavior cause harm (Baron and Neuman 1998; Saunders et al. 2007). Mayhew et al. (2004) determined that, similar to assault, even covert types of violent acts in companies such as bullying could cause emotional problems for victims.

Employ Respons Rights J (2017) 29:221–244 225

Beyond harming targets, bullies who perpetrate negative behaviors may influence others, including those who have witnessed the bullying (Samnani and Singh 2012). For instance, perceptions that bullying proliferates at work can negatively impact job satisfaction (Valentine et al. 2015). These connections imply that bullying might be learned experientially though negative work encounters and interactions (Altman 2010). As social learning theory suggests, modeling and imitating workplace bullying can help reinforce and spread negative effects (Salin 2003). Novak’s (1998) learning theory implies that experiences aid in the development of differing perceptions of workplace bullying, which can result in greatly varied reactions to it (Altman 2010). There may be significant motivations for witnesses of bullying to follow suit if they perceive that bullying yields positive rewards in the workplace (Boddy 2014). This may be particularly true if the organizational environment is viewed as a corrupt system that legitimizes the mistreatment of employees (see Hutchison et al. 2009; Vickers 2014).

Like bullies, psychopaths of all types (i.e., “clinical,” “subclinical,” “corporate,” “success- ful,” etc.) are also predisposed to cause harm to others (e.g., Boddy 2011; Hare 1994, 1999a, b; Stevens et al. 2012). Of all elements of the dark triad, psychopathy is often the most closely related with violent, dangerous, aggressive (O’Boyle et al. 2012; Rauthmann and Kolar 2012), and destructive workplace behavior (Boddy 2011). Psychopathy has been conceptualized as a disorder (Blair 2007; Lynam et al. 2007) that involves emotional dysfunction (e.g. an absence of empathy) and antisocial behavior (Blair 2007; Hare 1994, 1999a, b). Research into the etiology of psychopathy has distinguished two types (i.e., factors), including primary and secondary psychopathy (Yildirim and Derksen 2015). Primary psychopathy is considered a personal difference that is related to genetic origins, while secondary can be considered “an environmentally-contingent strategy,” leading to psychopathic behavioral expression (Yildirim and Derksen 2015, p.18). Subclinical levels of secondary psychopathy, partic- ularly the behavioral tendencies that are acted out in the corporate setting, are the focus of the current study.

Psychopaths, including those who exhibit subclinical levels of the characteristic and/or effectively function in companies, display a variety of potentially negative traits and behaviors such as an elevated sense of self-importance, shallow obsequiousness and charm, dishonesty, a charismatic and manipulative nature, decreased empathy, and an inability to accept personal responsibility for their misdeeds (e.g., Boddy 2011; Hare 1994, 1999b). In the general population, subclinical psychopathy, is estimated to occur at base rates of 5% to 15% (LeBreton et al. 2006), so the incidence is higher than clinical psychopathy traits and behaviors manifested at clinical levels (i.e. those individuals with diagnosable, severe impairment), which occurs at base rates of around 1% (Hare 1999a, b). The rare clinical levels of psychopathy may be most closely associated with Antisocial Personality Disorder, diagnosable only when sufficient criteria as found in the DSM 5 (APA 2013) are met. Even at subclinical levels, psychopathy is viewed as the most malicious of the Dark Triad (Rauthmann and Kolar 2012). Cognitive and neuropsychologists have identified the underlying neuropsychological mechanisms of the amygdala, which modulates emotional responses, and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, which plays a role in reasoning through potential negative consequences of behavior (Boddy 2011; Carlson 2014). Both the amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex interact in moral reasoning, and that process may be impaired in the case of psychopathy (Blair 2007). Dysfunction and antisocial behaviors are some of the other negative consequences associated with psychopathy (Hare 1994).

These counterproductive tendencies can create many challenges in the workplace. In particularly, subclinical/corporate psychopaths are known to get their way through bullying

226 Employ Respons Rights J (2017) 29:221–244

behaviors such as coercion, abuse, humiliation, aggression and fear tactics (Babiak and Hare 2006; Boddy 2011). Psychopathic bullies do not feel remorseful, guilty, or empathic in relation to their behavior, lacking insight; in fact, they may be unable or unwilling to control their behavior, even when more moderate behavior would ultimately be more advantageous (see Babiak and Hare 2006).

Like bullies on the playground in childhood, psychopathic tendencies and bullying behavior in the workplace may be connected. The notion of workplace psychopaths has gained traction to explain the incidence of workplace bullying (Caponecchia et al. 2012). The observable outcomes of bullying behavior and the attitudes and traits of subclinical psychopathy suggest theoretical overlap between bullies and subclinical psychopaths (Boddy 2011; Harvey et al. 2007). Boddy (2011) found a high positive correlation (r = 0.939) between corporate psycho- paths being in the workplace and the degree of perceived bullying (i.e. “witnessing unfavorable treatment of others at work”), which supported prior work demonstrating that individuals scoring high in measures of psychopathy were more likely to engage in bullying behavior (Nathanson et al. 2006). Certainly, bullies and psychopaths can be different individuals, yet there does seem to be considerable overlap between the two patterns/profiles. For example, Babiak and Hare (2006) found that around 29% of corporate psychopaths are also bullies. Further, Boddy (2014) evaluated the amount of bullying in organizations based on managerial type (i.e. “normal,” “dysfunctional,” and “psychopathic”) and determined that 35.2% of all bullying was related to corporate (i.e. subclinical) psychopaths.

Given this evidence, it can also be argued that exposure to workplace bullying may precipitate psychopathic tendencies in employees. The spiraling/spillover effect of bully- ing in organizations can create a culture that condones it, encouraging employees to learn and utilize such misconduct as an acceptable form of interaction with colleagues (e.g., Altman 2010; Harvey et al. 2009; Salin 2003). The negative social exchanges that are experienced when bullying is widespread can also create a prevailing perception among some individuals that equity, justice, and other ethical standards are not honored within a company (e.g., Parzefall and Salin 2010), thus encouraging them to adopt patterns associated with psychopathy for the purposes of self-benefit/interest. Taken together, these points lead to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Stronger perceived workplace bullying is associated with increased psychopathy.

Psychopathy and Recognition of an Ethical Issue

While psychopaths who lack a conscience may experience legal problems, psychopaths who possess subclinical levels of psychopathy may work undetected and even successfully within the workplace (Boddy et al. 2010). Successful psychopaths can exhibit poor ethical decision making (Boddy et al. 2010), and when they preside in leadership and other positions of power, may negatively influence others (Boddy 2011). When leadership and management include subclinical psychopaths, modeling unethical behavior to employees is more likely (Boddy 2006). Subclinical psychopaths are known for maximizing their own wealth and power and can make impulsive decisions in their own self-interest without carefully considering the long- term impacts to the organization (Boddy 2006). Further, lacking conscience and a sense of morality, subclinical psychopaths are often unaware of the problems related to decisions that

Employ Respons Rights J (2017) 29:221–244 227

are “immoral, unethical, contrary to accepted codes of professional practice, or outright illegal” (Boddy 2006, p. 1470).

Ethical decisions should be particularly affected by patterns of psychopathy. The ethical decision-making process is typically conceptualized as a series of mental and behavioral steps that occur sequentially as employees face ethical dilemmas at work (see Ferrell and Gresham 1985; Ferrell et al. 2007; Hunt and Vitell 2006; Jackson et al. 2013; Jones 1991; Rest 1986; Treviño 1986; Wotruba 1990 for variations of the basic framework). Individuals first recognize that a situation contains an ethical issue before evaluating any potential problems; this first step is viewed as a critical component of ethical reasoning because it precipitates other more advanced stages of decision making (e.g., Rest 1986). The next step involves making judgments of the ethicality of a situation based on different paradigms such as equity, fairness, justice, and social expectations (see Rest 1986; Reidenbach and Robin 1990). Once formal- ized, these judgments lead into intentions to behave consistently with previous evaluations. The final step is behaving according to previous judgments and intentions (Jones 1991; Rest 1986). Research indicates that these steps hold true in many different ethical situations (e.g., Barnett 2001; Barnett and Valentine 2004; Robin et al. 1996; Valentine and Barnett 2007; Valentine et al. 2010).

Prior research suggests that the neuropsychological makeup of individuals with psycho- pathic tendencies makes them challenged to follow the steps of the ethical reasoning process (Blair 2007; Carlson 2014). Within the construct of subclinical psychopathy are the underlying belief systems that may compromise the ethical reasoning process. Subclinical psychopaths are known to admire clever scams, feel justified in doing whatever they can get away with and would agree with the statement: “For me, what’s right is whatever I can get away with” (Levenson et al. 1995, p. 153). In addition, Jackson et al. (2013) suggested in their framework of ethical decision-making dissolution that poor cognitive moral development, low ethical sensitivity, and a willingness to break rules among leaders, traits reflective of psychopathy, would negatively impact the recognition of ethical situations.

One study in particular provides compelling support for these relationships. Stevens et al. (2012) found that the link between psychopathy and unethical reasoning was mediated by the variable moral disengagement. In their study, a large sample of undergraduates reacted to four ethics vignettes based on typical organizational dilemmas (e.g., shortcuts in production, failing to highlight inaccuracies in financial documents, etc.) and were asked to indicate the likelihood that they would commit the unethical behaviors in the scenarios. As predicted, psychopathy was positively related to individuals’ self-reported willingness to commit unethical acts (Stevens et al. 2012). Given the positive relationship between psychopathy and unethical decision making, it follows that as levels of psychopathy increase, recognizing an ethical issue, the first step in the ethical decision-making process, would decrease. The following hypothesis is therefore proposed:

Hypothesis 2: Increased psychopathy is associated with decreased recognition of an ethical issue.

Workplace Bullying and Recognition of an Ethical Issue

Workplace bullying has significant effects on both targets and observers in the workplace. As mentioned earlier, bullies and psychopaths can be different people, but there appears to be a

228 Employ Respons Rights J (2017) 29:221–244

noteworthy overlap in expressed deviant behavior (Babiak and Hare 2006; Boddy 2014). Therefore, both victims and observers of this dysfunctional behavior are, over time, likely to incorporate these behaviors themselves and/or come to accept them as normalized organiza- tional behavior (Giorgi et al. 2015), which triggers the spiraling/spillover of misconduct.

A number of potential affective/attitudinal (e.g. job satisfaction and commitment), health/well- being (e.g. mental and physical health), and behavioral outcomes (e.g. performance) have been associated with bullying (e.g., Giorgi 2012; Nielsen and Einarsen 2012). Mayhew et al. (2004) found that violent acts at work such as bullying could precipitate severe emotional trauma in employees. Unfortunately, individuals may experience a constellation of these negative outcomes, which could fundamentally affect other work responses. Successful psychopaths who bully, and others who adopt similar behaviors, may focus on short-term gains in individual performance outcomes to rationalize their actions (Babiak and Hare 2006), while long-term cumulative impacts of bullying at the organizational level are likely to be detrimental to a company and its performance (Samnani and Singh 2012; Vega and Comer 2005). Giorgi (2012) indeed determined that workplace bullying was negatively related to a positive organizational climate.

When bullying spirals and/or spills over, there is reason to believe that ethical dissolution would result from an egoistic fixation on individual gains at the expense of others, and that these preferences can be driven by unethical corporate cultures, highly competitive workplaces, and social networks that allow and/or encourage dysfunctional behavior (Jackson et al. 2013). It has been proposed that bullying is a reflection of corruption in organizations (Hutchison et al. 2009; Vickers 2014), and a work environment affected by such corruption should function in a way counter to generally accepted ethical norms. According to McKay et al. (2008, p. 92):